Expert: Marvin Howard - 4/12/2007

Question
Was the Bible originally written in Greek or Latin? Either way, since no one currently fluently speaks the language in its original form, isn't the Bible not completely accurate. I know it has been translated, but it can only be the translation/interpretation of the meaning, and the the exact words of God as it was meant to be read.

Answer
Hi!

John, thank you for giving me the chance to answer this for you.

The Bible was, indeed, written in Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament), but not in the dead language of Latin. Both of the original languages are still spoken and living today. In many cases, these languages are spoken today by those who also speak English. While it is true of Latin and catholicism, saying that no one speaks the original languages of the Bible is a false premise; one I do not accept.

I happen to be partially bilingual, myself; Spanish being the other language in which I am almost fluent. When I go into a Mexican restaraunt and ask for a beverage "sin hielo" (without ice), it is not my interpretation that decides its meaning. The hearer of the message has the same thought upon hearing the message as I intended to deliver.

However, based upon the wording of your question, I gather that you do not speak either Greek or Hebrew. Personally, I only know a few words, but as I study, this knowledge increases daily. Nevertheless, what happens when you hear a word (in English) that is new to you? IF you really want to know the meaning of the word, the proper meaning can be ascertained by either of two methods.

1)  You can ask a person who IS familiar with that word.

2)  You can pick up a dictionary.

Either action boils down to the same process, as the author of the dictionary is either familiar with the word, or had to ask somebody who was familiar with the word. Even if the author derived the meaning from another written source, somewhere down the line it comes back to someone who was familiar with the word.

What will determine the accuracy of the definition, especially between differing languages (even ancient or archaic words within the same language) is the author's familiarity with idiom. This is nothing but a fancy way of saying that a particular word or phrase has changed its meaning over the course of time, but it originally had this meaning. Let me give you two, short examples of idiom from Scripture.

Judges 3:24 uses a seemingly odd phrase; "covereth his feet." This is an example of ancient to modern English idiom. At first glance, this sounds like someone getting dressed or at the very least shodding their feet. Such is not the case. This is a word picture that actually gives richness to the passage by drawing a more vivid picture to the reader. Beside explaining why the servant of Ehud waited before finding him, this phrase actually shows you the type of clothes Ehud wore, specifically; robes. It was the custom in the days of robes, when a male had a bowel movement, before being seated, he would let his robes fall to his feet, covering them. In short, Ehud's servants believed he was using the restroom.

Now, let's look at an example of Greek to English idiom. Through religious misuse, the word baptism has several meanings to the average hearer today.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If a person really wants to know what a word means, they will use a source to learn. Any idiot can write a dictionary. Just because that author may define a zebra as a member of the dog family would not make it so. When you use a dictionary, it must be one that is recognized as being authoritative and accurate. Now if a person does NOT want to know the true meaning of a word, they will listen to anyone, even someone who does not know that of which he is speaking, and may end up believing that a zebra is a dog. But, I digress.

To translate an idiom properly, you must use an accurate source for your translation. In the classic Greek writings, the original usage of the word baptize may be found in a pickle recipe originally written by a man named Nicandor. Baptize was what you did to cucumbers to create pickles. Since a cucumber must be immersed in the vinegar to make the pickle, we have a clear picture of what the word truly means. Sprinkling and pouring actually have a separate, Greek word from which they are translated. To visualize baptism as a sprinkling or pouring is an interpretation. To see it as immersion is translation.

To fully answer your question, translation is one thing, but interpretation is completely different. All languages were created by God at Babel (Genesis 11). They all have rules (grammar), and God knows how to use these rules. When the rules are followed, the original meaning can be ascertained. When the rules are NOT followed, THEN you get interpretation, and according to 2nd Peter 1:20, we are not permitted to use interpretation with Scripture; either our own invention, or that of another, private individual.

Many (per)versions of Scripture have been written that are truly interpretations. They are like the dictionary that calls a zebra a dog. Just because such exists and is in printed form does not alter the truth.

Jon, IF it is your intention to understand the original meaning (and I pray that it is) of Scripture, it is still possible to do so today. There are enough sources to check, and enough people (entire races) to verify the accuracy and authenticity of a translation whereby this is possible. When divided or handled correctly (2nd Timothy 2:15), the Bible is accurate, even today.

Nevertheless, for those who desire to make the Scripture fit their own teaching, those who desire to handle or divide the Word incorrectly, the Bible gives a warning.

2nd Thessalonians 2:10-12, "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

If you will allow me the phrase, God has allowed man to invent a system to prevent the "riff-raff" from entering Heaven. This is the moral agency of man: we are allowed to obey or disobey while here, on earth. Even so, such agency is not free, as improper use carries punishment. The interpretations are deadly, but God allows them to exist. Nevertheless, translation is not only allowed and good, it is commanded by the hermenutic of necessary inference. With the number of languages that existed, even in Bible times (Acts 2:8), if translation was not commanded (or even if it was forbidden), it would be impossible for us to obey the commands set forth in the Great Commission. If such changed the accuracy or original meaning of the Scripture, then those following the Great Commission would fall under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8-9. No, my friend, proper translation does not change the original meaning of the Bible, and allows it to remain 100% accurate today.

Jon, I hope this answer has clarified this issue for you. Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962